The Radish

Re: Atheist Society

SimonM — Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:40 am

Author: SimonM

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:40 am

Georgy Porgy wrote:

but the idea of a student society acting as a 'watchdog' over another??????
are you mad?

Isn't that sort of one part of what associations do?

Re: Atheist Society

Georgy Porgy — Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:54 pm

Author: Georgy Porgy

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:54 pm

[quote="gorky"]

higuy wrote:

3. Producing anti-religious propaganda.

4. Acting as watchdog for the religious socieities and religious organisations outside the uni, a small example, Gideons Bibles come as standard in Halls. Why should we have Christian tracts imposed on us?

in answer to the question in 4, we should have 'christian tracts' left in halls for us as long as other religious and ideological groups are allowed to do the same. if you don't want to read it, don't read it.

by your logic, either the dissemination of free ideological literature should be either banned in its entirety, or encouraged accross the board. but the idea of a student society acting as a 'watchdog' over another??????
are you mad?

Re: Atheist Society

whatdoyoucare — Fri May 26, 2006 2:36 pm

Author: whatdoyoucare

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:36 pm

I agree. It's different to, say, totally misquoting someone for example.

Re: Atheist Society

gorky — Fri May 26, 2006 12:19 pm

Author: gorky

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:19 pm

PeterM wrote:

gorky wrote:

Yup a howler on my part, almost needless to say I meant that Atheist Soc should be watchdog for the interests of atheists and secularists, not the religious societies! Steady on the sarcasm though PeterM. Given the context the statement isn't really ambiguous.

Good. I wouldnt like one little 'howler' to cause an awfull lot of trouble

I doubt it would cause that much trouble dear boy. You knew perfectly well what was meant by the comment. The context made the meaning clear.

Re: Atheist Society

PeterM — Fri May 26, 2006 11:33 am

Author: PeterM

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:33 am

gorky wrote:

Good. I wouldnt like one little 'howler' to cause an awfull lot of trouble

Re: Atheist Society

Teapotboy — Fri May 26, 2006 11:08 am

Author: Teapotboy

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:08 am

Dear Prudence wrote:

What's an arguement?

Lol and I was worried about my stupid comment on your commas...

Re: Atheist Society

naivehottie — Fri May 26, 2006 11:08 am

Author: naivehottie

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:08 am

To make it clear I agree you can criticise religious beliefs providing it's reasoned.

That's a lot different to hating someone as a person for their beliefs.

Hope that clarifies what I was saying.

Re: Atheist Society

Dear Prudence — Fri May 26, 2006 10:49 am

Author: Dear Prudence

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:49 am

What's an arguement?

Re: Atheist Society

SarcasmStealthSquad — Fri May 26, 2006 10:05 am

Author: SarcasmStealthSquad

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:05 am

Quote:

You're wrong about Josh's sexuality.

Anyway the point he was making was that it's an active choice to have sex with someone, but not who you're attracted to.

Having sex is not an incidental thing but a personal choice. Being attracted to someone is an incidental thing that you can't choose.

Hope that explains it.

*sheepish*

Must appologise. Implying you were a straight man. I'm sure you haven't been called anything so bad in a long time :p

Must agree with Sid on this matter. All opinions are open for criticism so long as it's reasoned. An arguement against....

*runs off to find a bible to find a contriversial quote*

Timothy 2:11-12, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

To argue this is wrong because it is christian teaching is wrong as it is not a considered arguement. To argue based upon establishment of male and female equality however is a considered arguement especially with examples of equally or more competent female (or incopetent male) teachers or politicians. It is the way it is argued that is right or wrong not the disagreement with teachings or doctrines. Equally an arguement based solely on because it says so in the bible is equally abhorrent

Re: Atheist Society

naivehottie — Thu May 25, 2006 10:00 pm

Author: naivehottie

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:00 pm

Teapotboy wrote:

I'm sure I could do a week of shagging guys, which is what makes you gay in terms of a homophobe inciting hatred against you.

I couldn't but I could do a week without shagging girls no problems, as that's clearly a more sensible comparison. Noone's saying people have to be having sex with girls either. I don't shag girls and have no intention of doing so, neither do I guys. At the end of the day it's people's choice, I don't see why I should judge a person on it as it doesn't affect me, but the same with their beliefs.
I don't like Islam one bit for example, but that doesn't mean I hate muslims and nor should it, I'd judge them on who they are as an individual.

Re: Atheist Society

naivehottie — Thu May 25, 2006 9:38 pm

Author: naivehottie

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:38 pm

Hating someone based on their religion is no better than hating someone on who they have sex with.

That doesn't mean you can't hate the beliefs, as I think this is perfectly reasonable but I think discrimination based on religion is a different matter, as that's stopping someone do something or similar. If the law was you couldn't say someone's religion's wrong then that would be stupid, and thankfully it isn't, but that's different to discrimination.

Re: Atheist Society

Oktober — Thu May 25, 2006 9:10 pm

Author: Oktober

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:10 pm

naivehottie wrote:

Oktober wrote:

Well, maybe you could say it is a choice to actually have sex with someone, but if you descriminate against say a man for having a relationship with a man, then your being sexist because you would regard it as ok if a woman did the same thing.

It is discrimination, but so is discrimination based on someone's beliefs. That's not to say that you can't disagree with religions, I opposed the original religious hatred laws because they'd infringe freedoms to criticise beliefs. I think you shouldn't transfer hating a religion to hating members of that religion. To do so is discrimination even if it's on their choice, just as much as it's still discrimination even though someone chooses to go out with a man.

Ok, so next up, anti political hatrid laws?

Re: Atheist Society

Teapotboy — Thu May 25, 2006 8:47 pm

Author: Teapotboy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:47 pm

SarcasmStealthSquad wrote:

Quote:

But based on "sexuality" presumably would deal largely with incitement against people practicing alternative sexualities, which is just as much an "active belief" and decision as religion. Shagging guys is not like race or disability or sex, something you cannot help, it is a choice you are making, just like being Christian.

Now this is as stupid as that comment about over reacting muslims.

Ok if sexuality is a choice try this out. (For the purposes of this arguement I'm assuming you're straight.) Be gay for a week. Make the decision to only be attrracted to guys. See how successful you are at doing that.

I'm sure I could do a week of shagging guys, which is what makes you gay in terms of a homophobe inciting hatred against you. "Burn the people who fancy men" would be a.) not as catchy as "Burn the queers" and b.) fairly impractical unless you have a telepathic fascist.

Re: Atheist Society

naivehottie — Thu May 25, 2006 8:10 pm

Author: naivehottie

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:10 pm

Oktober wrote:

Re: Atheist Society

Oktober — Thu May 25, 2006 5:23 pm

Author: Oktober

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:23 pm

Well, maybe you could say it is a choice to actually have sex with someone, but if you descriminate against say a man for having a relationship with a man, then your being sexist because you would regard it as ok if a woman did the same thing.